Effect of bowel preparation before vaginal surgery on perioperative outcomes in patients with pelvic floor disorders
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) with oral laxative against no bowel preparation on the perioperative outcomes for pelvic floor dysfunction (PFD). The need for bowel preparation before vaginal surgery was thus also investigated. Methods: PFD patients undergoing vaginal surgery in Peking University People's hospital from September 2017 to July 2018 were randomly assigned to MBP (n = 60) or control (n = 60) groups. The two groups were compared for the incidence of preoperative abdominal symptoms and overall patient satisfaction, intraoperative visualization of the surgical field assessed by the surgeon, and postoperative recovery outcomes. Results: There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups (p > 0.05) for surgical visualization, the surgeon’s overall satisfaction, or for the rate of postoperative complications. However, patients in the MBP group reported more gastrointestinal symptoms and had reduced satisfaction compared to the control group (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The use of MBP before vaginal surgery reduces preoperative patient satisfaction while conferring no benefit in terms of optimizing surgical visualization and reducing postoperative complications. For patients with PFDs, it is safe and feasible to do without MBP before vaginal surgery.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Four trials reported on bowel function (Ballard 2014; Deng 2019; Liu 2020; Sassani 2020).
“Four trials reported on bowel function (Ballard 2014; Deng 2019; Liu 2020; Sassani 2020).”
From Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery (2025) · cites this paper as Liu 2020
Cites
Bowel Preparation Before Vaginal Prolapse Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Ballard, A. C., Parker-Autry, C. Y., Markland, A. D., Varner, R. E., Huisingh, C., & Richter, H. E. (2014) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000000081 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery
Shahid, U., Haya, N., Baessler, K., Christmann-Schmid, C., Yeung, E., Chen, Z., & Maher, C. (2025) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd013105.pub2 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Liu, Y. Y., Liang, Y., Li, X. D., Deng, H., Yang, X., & Wang, J. L.
- Affiliations
- Peking University People's Hospital (CN)
- Peking University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Li, X.D.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology
- Publisher
- IMR Press
- Published
- 2020-12-15
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 6
- ISSN
- 0390-6663 (ISSN-L)
- 2709-0094
- OpenAlex
- W3114537174
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 0.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Enhanced Recovery After Surgery
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Surgical site infection prevention
- Keywords
- bowel preparation, mechanical bowel preparation, oral laxatives, pelvic floor dysfunction, vaginal surgery, perioperative outcomes, surgical visualization, postoperative complications, patient satisfaction, gastrointestinal symptoms
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review